Current debates about welfare policy include whether or not and how to protect welfare recipients from abusive relationships. Although these welfare-to-work programs did not test the effects of time limits or special exemptions for victims of domestic abuse, increased employment and earnings may indirectly affect the incidence of employment-related or domestic abuse. On the one hand, increased employment may enhance self-esteem and encourage program group members to leave abusive relationships, or increased hours of employment may simply reduce contact with intimate partners or family members who are abusive or remove individuals from abusive situations. On the other hand, increased employment may exacerbate abuse that is occurring in a current relationship as a partner or spouse negatively or violently reacts to the enhanced independence and self-sufficiency that accompanies employment.(13) In addition, because welfare benefits are replaced by earned income, increased employment in the context of these programs may not lead to increased personal resources or, possibly, the ability to leave an abusive relationship.

As noted, information about job-related and domestic abuse was collected only for respondents in the Child Outcomes Study sample in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside. Employment-related abuse is measured over a respondent's lifetime. However, because information about the timing of domestic abuse is available, these outcomes are presented for two time periods at any time during a respondent's life and in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview.

Figure 9.3 shows the proportion of control group members who experienced domestic abuse at any time in their life (for example, had been threatened, yelled at, insulted, or physically harmed) and who experienced domestic abuse by an intimate partner in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. Nearly 50 to 70 percent of control group members reported ever being abused. Control group rates of any domestic abuse by intimate partners in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview ranged from 15 to 20 percent. This is roughly 9 percentage points lower than the abuse rates documented for long-term recipients with young school-age children in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and for recipients and applicants in Florida's Family Transition Program (FTP).(14) However, state and national estimates suggest that approximately 20 percent of the welfare population currently experiences domestic abuse and from 40 to 70 percent experienced domestic abuse at any time during their life.(15)

Figure 9.3
Control Group Levels of Having Experienced Any Domestic Abuse

Impacts on employment-related abuse and domestic abuse that occurred at any time during a respondent's life are shown in Table 9.5. Less that 10 percent of control group members reported experiencing any job harassment (being interrupted by phone or in person by someone) and up to approximately 30 percent reported experiencing job deterrence (being forced to quit or prevented from taking a job). The first three panels of Table 9.5 show that none of the programs in the three sites affected reports of any lifetime experience of having been discouraged from taking a job, harassed while holding a job, or deterred from getting a job. The relatively low levels and lack of impacts on these outcomes are quite encouraging given recent literature that finds that conflicts with intimate partners or others serve as an important barrier to work faced by former welfare recipients.(16)Table 9.5 also shows reported any lifetime experience of domestic abuse. With one exception, none of programs affected reports of any lifetime experience of domestic abuse. Program group members in the Grand Rapids LFA program were 11 percentage points, or 17 percent, more likely to report any lifetime experience of domestic abuse. Further analyses suggest that this experience occurred before random assignment or during the first few years of follow-up and, for the most part, was nonphysical abuse by someone other than an intimate partner, such as a friend or family member (not shown). There were significant differences between the LFA and HCD program approaches on this outcome in Grand Rapids.

Table 9.5
Impacts on Any Lifetime Experience of Employment-Related or Domestic Abuse

Site and Program

Sample Size

Program Group (%)

Control Group (%)

Difference (Impact)

Percentage Change (%)

Any lifetime experience of having been discouraged from taking a job a

Atlanta Labor Force Attachment

573

29.1

29.6

-0.5

-1.8

Atlanta Human Capital Development

646

30.7

29.6

1.0

3.5

Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment

417

36.1

39.5

-3.4

-8.6

Grand Rapids Human Capital Development

398

33.0

39.5

-6.5

-16.4

Riverside Labor Force Attachment

502

36.7

36.5

0.2

0.6

Lacked high school diploma or basic skills

317

31.6

36.7

-5.1

-13.9

Riverside Human Capital Development

418

34.5

36.7

-2.2

-6.1

Any lifetime experience of having been harassed while holding a job a

Atlanta Labor Force Attachment

565

6.0

8.1

-2.1

-25.6

Atlanta Human Capital Development

639

6.2

8.1

-1.9

-23.9

Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment

415

8.5

9.9

-1.4

-14.1

Grand Rapids Human Capital Development

398

8.0

9.9

-1.9

-19.4

Riverside Labor Force Attachment

496

9.9

8.6

1.3

15.3

Lacked high school diploma or basic skills

311

11.3

7.2

4.1

56.7

Riverside Human Capital Development

413

7.2

7.2

-0.1

-0.8

Any lifetime experience of having been deterred from getting or holding a job a

Atlanta Labor Force Attachment

575

20.9

20.8

0.1

0.4

Atlanta Human Capital Development

654

20.2

20.8

-0.6

-3.1

Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment

417

21.2

29.0

-7.8*

-26.8

Grand Rapids Human Capital Development

400

23.4

29.0

-5.6

-19.3

Riverside Labor Force Attachment

501

27.0

24.6

2.3

9.5

Lacked high school diploma or basic skills

315

23.2

23.7

-0.5

-2.1

Riverside Human Capital Development

415

24.5

23.7

0.8

3.6

Any lifetime experience of domestic abuse

Atlanta Labor Force Attachment

541

51.5

49.6

1.9

3.8

Atlanta Human Capital Development

610

48.7

49.6

-1.0

-1.9

Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment

396

75.8

65.0

10.8**

16.6

Grand Rapids Human Capital Development

379

62.8

65.0

-2.2

-3.5

Riverside Labor Force Attachment

471

61.4

65.1

-3.7

-5.7

Lacked high school diploma or basic skills

289

55.8

61.2

-5.4

-8.8

Riverside Human Capital Development

380

64.0

61.2

2.8

4.6

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.NOTES: See Appendix A.2.
Owing to missing values, sample sizes may vary.aEmployment-related abuse, including job discouragement, job harassment, and job deterrence, is measured over a respondents lifetime. Some examples of employment-related abuse are as follows: someone's trying to discourage the respondent from finding a job or going to work at any time in her life would be considered job discouragement; the respondent's being harassed at her workplace over the telephone and/or in person at any time in her life would be considered job harassment; someone's causing the respondent to quit or lose a job at any time in her life would be considered job deterrence.

Table 9.6 shows impacts on measures of domestic abuse in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. Although programs had few effects on measures of employment-related or domestic abuse that occurred at any point in a respondent's life, the welfare-to-work programs did affect one important aspect of the quality of more recent relationships. In particular, in all of the LFA and HCD programs, program group members reported fewer incidences of experiencing physical domestic abuse (for example, hitting) during the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview, by 3 to 6 percentage points, than control group members, and nearly all of these program-control group differences achieved or approached statistical significance.(17)

Table 9.6
Impacts on Experiences of Domestic Abuse in the Year Prior to the Five-Year Follow-Up Interview

Survey Disclaimer

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0990-0379. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, OS/OCIO/PRA, 200 Independence Ave., S.W., Suite 336-E, Washington D.C. 20201, Attention: PRA Reports Clearance Officer.